anthropic impact on the archaeological sites reflected in...
TRANSCRIPT
Studii de Preistorie 12, 2015, p. 207-221.
Anthropic impact on the archaeological sites reflected in
geospatial analysis. Study case: Ilfov County
Mihai Ștefan FLOREA∗
Abstract: The spatial dimension of human behavior is an important research field in archaeology. The
methods and techniques related with geomatics, especially GIS (Geographical Information System), are useful
tools for archaeologists. The present study aims to analyze the anthropic impact on the archaeological sites in the
Ilfov County, based on the data that covers a 150 years period (1864 – 2015) are used. Along with assessing
anthropic impact, this paper presents a methodology of work which can be used in urban planning, in order to
minimize uncontrolled losses on heritage.
Rezumat: Dimensiunea spațială a comportamentului uman a fost și este una dintre direcțiile
importante de studiu în arheologie. Metodele și tehnicile de lucru care țin de domeniul geomaticii, în special
GIS, sunt pentru arheologi un instrument util cu ajutorul cărora se pot examina seturi de date voluminoase în
context spațial, abordare propusă și în articolul de față. Studiul prezentat a avut ca scop o analiză a impactului
antropic, în ultimii 150 ani (1864 – 2015), asupra siturilor arheologice din județul Ilfov, utilizând seturi de date
disponibile în spațiul public. Concomitent cu evaluarea impactului antropic, lucrarea de față prezintă o
metodologie de lucru care, utilizată frecvent în alte domenii, în etapele de analiză a peisajului poate ajuta la
diminuarea pierderilor în domeniul patrimoniului.
Keywords: Ilfov County, archaeological sites, anthropic impact, GIS analyses.
Cuvinte cheie: Județul Ilfov, situri arheologice, impactul antropic, analize GIS.
� Introduction
The spatial dimension of the human behavior is one important topic in archaeological
research. The methods and techniques used in geomatics, especially GIS, are a very useful
instrument for archaeologists, allowing them to examine large sets of data in spatial context.
This paper aims to analyze the anthropic impact, in the last 150 years (1864-2015),
upon archaeological sites from Ilfov County. The data regarding the archaeological sites
were taken from two data bases for archaeological sites in Romania, the National
Archaeological Record of Romania (RAN)1 and the List of Historical Monuments (LMI)2.
Both of them are managed by the National Institute for Heritage. Another source of data was
represented by the archaeological reports of the Ilfov County Department for Culture and
National Heritage (DJC Ilfov). The archaeological reports for the years 2008–2009 were used
for this study3.
∗ National Museum of Romanian History, IT Department, Bucharest, 12 Calea Victoriei, Romania,
e-mail: [email protected]. 1 RAN is a public database, until recently managed by the Institute of Cultural Memory (CIMEC); data
provided can be found at http://ran.cimec.ro. 2 LMI is updated every five years; the last update was made in 2010 and is available online at
http://www.cultura.ro/page/17. 3 Data provided by the Ilfov County Department for Culture are being processed; so far, only the data
for 2008 year were finalized.
Mihai Ștefan FLOREA
208
Ilfov County covers an area of 1583 km2 (the area calculated according to GIS is 1564.2
km2). Its position around the capital city of Romania had many effects during time and
influenced its evolution, not exactly in a positive way. This is how the successive changes in
the administrative-territorial organization of the county in the last 150 years added or
eliminated large areas of the county territory (M.Ș. Florea 2015, p. 343). With such a dynamic,
any statistic applied to this county should take in consideration these facts.
A series of facilities already encouraged this study. Many of the used data sets,
official and unofficial, are available on the internet for free. More data were added through
the Government related institutions (ANCPI4, DTM5, DJC6, town halls) who kindly offered
the requested information. Least but not last, the easy access to open source softs from the
geomatics7 area allowed the data integration, management and interrogation. The official
data is offered by RAN, LMI, ANCPI, DTM and CORINE8. The unofficial data, accessed
through specialized sites, often represent the results obtained mostly within research projects
or through non-government organizations or even personal achievements. The following
sources were used entirely or partially: Charta 18649, Historical Maps of the Habsburg Empire10,
Planurile Directoare de Tragere11, GEOIDEA12. Among the personal projects from web we can
mention the following address http://www.pug-puz.ro/13 from where the data regarding the
General Urban Plans (PUG) of Ilfov County were filtered.
� The geographic and administrative frame
Located in the South-East part of Romania, in the middle of the Romanian Plain, Ilfov
County is surrounded by Dâmbovița County to the North-West, Prahova County to the
North and Ialomița County to the North-East. Giurgiu County to the South-West and
Călărași County to the South-East represent mostly territories of the former Ilfov County
which was previously spreading up to Danube River.
Regarding the relief, Ilfov County belongs to the Romanian Plain with its three
distinct sub-divisions, Vlăsia Plain in the North side, Burnas Plain in the South-East side and
Mostiștea Plain in the East side. A comprehensive description of the area and its
particularities was performed by Vintilă Mihăilescu in the paper Vlăsia și Mostiștea. Evoluția
4 National Agency for Cadaster and Land Registration. 5 Directorate for Military Topography. 6 Ilfov County Department of Culture and National Heritage. 7 The most used for the present study was QGIS program that has numerous applications for the
spatial analysis in general and applications dedicated for archaeology in particular
(http://www.qgis.org/en/site/). 8 Coordination of Information on the Environment. 2000 edition - http://www.geo-
spatial.org/download/datele-corine-landcover-reproiectate-in-stereo70; 2006 edition - http://www.eea.
europa.eu/ data-and-maps/data/clc-2006-vector-data-version. 9 Digital approaches in cartographic heritage: digitizing, georeferencing and publishing on web of the
”Charta României Meridionale” - http://www.charta1864.ro. 10 Several projects were combined into a single result, namely digitization of the historical maps of the
Habsburg Empire; available at http://mapire.eu/en. 11 http://www.geo-spatial.org/download/planurile-directoare-de-tragere. 12 http://geoidea.ethz.ch/ (data were used by Web Map Services method). 13 The site is not permanently operational and some data may be removed by the owner (accessed
during September - October 2015).
Anthropic impact on the archaeological sites reflected in geospatial analysis. Study case: Ilfov County
209
geografică a două regiuni din Câmpia Română: Mostistei and Vlasiei plains are part from the central
area of Romanian plain, were the largest number of valleys with waters was gathered and with a
peninsula with more atmospheric humidity, a largest advancement of the forest toward the Danube,
between two steppe lands and with the largest agglomeration of the villages and population from the
hills and Danubian meadow. (V. Mihăilescu 1925, p. 3). In the above mentioned paper there are
also the limits of the two sub-divisions of the Romanian Plain (V. Mihăilescu 1925, p. 5, fig. 1;
p. 9, fig. 2).
The hydrographic network cuts the county in a diagonal line, from North-West to
South-East, having Dâmbovița and Colentina as main artery, Sabarul and Ciorogârla in
South, Pasărea, Cociovaliștea and Vlăsia in North. The hydrographic network is completed
by the river edge type lakes (Bălteni, Snagov, Căldăruşani) from Snagovului Plain (I. Ujvári
1972, p. 467; P.V. Coteţ 1976, p. 188; vezi fig. 1).
Nowadays, Ilfov County counts 105 localities (from which 8 towns - Bragadiru,
Buftea, Chitila, Măgurele, Otopeni, Pantelimon, Popești Leordeni and Voluntari) grouped in
40 communes (fig. 2).
The socio-economic characteristics of the Ilfov County are strongly influenced by its
position near the capital city of Romania. Not long before, this county also included
Bucharest in its administrative structure. For a long period of time, the only towns in the
Ilfov County were Bucharest and Oltenița. Therefore, all the administrative institutions of the
county are nowadays located in Bucharest.
The traditional cultural landscape of the Ilfov County included various types of
vegetation representative for the ancient forms of agroforestry14, farmlands, grasslands for
the animal husbandry, more or less wooded grasslands with natural forest element,
deforested areas and areas with controlled forest exploitation15 (P. Angelstam 2006, p. 125).
Several modifications appeared during time in the landscape of Ilfov County and they can be
structured in a few stages. In the first decade of the 20th century Ilfov County16 is
characterized by the existence of small and numerous settlements, surrounded by large
forested surfaces and spread along the water courses17. An explication is given by V.
Mihăilescu, who reminds of the recent alluvial deposits which formed limited gravel bars so
the land for agriculture and settlement were restricted, leading to strong agglomerations (V.
Mihăilescu 1925, p. 78). In the period after First World War until the 90’s, there was a rising
of the surface of agricultural land by deforestation and draining of some surfaces with
humidity excess18. Also, this is a period characterized by strong industrialization. Agriculture
on large surfaces almost disappeared after the 90’s and until present day and the land is used
for developing real estate investment projects and infrastructure works.
14 The term is very actual today and refers to the integration of the agroforestry systems (trees) in the
areas of arable soils with the aim to improve the quality of soil and to reduce the erosion of
biodiversity. 15 Reference to the areas where the old trees were felled but the roots were retained and the obtained
shoots were controlled for the development of the young forests. 16 A Europe-wide analysis (P. Angelstam 2006). 17 This image is very well captured in the Third Topographic survey of the Habsburg Empire (V.
Crăciunescu 2006). 18 This was the aim of the field research undertaken in the northern part of the County by Vasilica
Sandu between the years 1986-1987 (V. Sandu 1992, p. 289).
Mihai Ștefan FLOREA
210
In the actual context, a very strict record of what can be recovered from the already
known archaeological sites and from those recorded during various occasions19, for the
purpose of their protection / conservation, needs new strategies based on modern methods
(GIS, photogrammetry etc.) and interdisciplinary approaches (C. Borș 2014, p. 142-147). The
present paper, together with the evaluation of the anthropic impact on archaeological sites in
Ilfov County, presents a methodology frequently used in other fields, which take in
consideration the analysis of certain areas from the point of view of ecology, environment,
urban landscape etc. and which can help the local and central authorities in order to
diminish the loss in the field of immobile cultural heritage represented here by the
archaeological sites (C.E. Ștefan, M.Ș. Florea 2010; L. Măruia et alii 2011; R.C. Stoiculescu et
alii 2014).
� Methodology
The following sets of sources were used in this paper: data regarding the
archaeological sites from Ilfov County, geospatial data regarding the administrative
structure, the hydrographic network and relief, statistical data and maps (historical and
modern).
A data base was created in the first part of this study, where the archaeological sites
from Ilfov County were uploaded. All the data was extracted from LMI, RAN and the
archive of DJC Ilfov.
The integration in GIS of the archaeological sites needed the official administrative-
territorial data (UAT20) of Ilfov County. They were extracted from the data base published by
ANCPI21. Because the RAN and LMI database does not include the limits of archaeological
sites, their spatial representation was interpreted using the descriptive texts presented in the
field named adresă (address) and defined in GIS as a point type vector. The information from
the DJC Ilfov archive allowed the localization of surfaces on which archaeological
excavations were carried on, but they do not give more information regarding the limits of
the archaeological sites. The situation is the same for the other sources22, which did not
provide a much clear situation regarding the sites limits.
The information about the land use in Ilfov County was extracted from CORINE
Land Cover23 (A-I. Petrișor 2011). CORINE represents the European reference data set for
land use (coordinating the information about environment), a project which generated vector
type files grouped in 44 classes and presented as a cartographic product at a 1:100 000 scale.
For the present analysis the archaeological sites from Ilfov County were linked with CORINE
data in order to follow the tendency of environment changes in the nearby of archaeological
sites.
The demographic evolution was taken from the statistical data of the census from the
years 1912, 1948, 1992 and 2011, provided by The National Institute for Statistics.
19 For example, the historical studies performed to achieve the PUGs (V. Sandu 2013, p. 66-67). 20 Administrative territorial units. 21 Data, available at web http://geoportal.ancpi.ro, were obtained at request in 30.04.2014. 22 I referred in particular at the PUGs to which I had access; mostly they do not offer geographical
coordinates and use, as the limits of the archaeological sites, underlining or drawings based on the
descriptions founded in the published historical studies. 23 When offered as an archive, these data are named CLC, CORINE Land Cover.
Anthropic impact on the archaeological sites reflected in geospatial analysis. Study case: Ilfov County
211
The maps used in this paper are as following: Charta României Meridionale, Planurile
Directoare de Tragere, the maps of the Third Topographic survey of the Habsburg Empire, the
Topographic Map of Romania (1:25000 scale and ortophotoplans (2010 edition) obtained from
Directorate for Military Topography (DTM).
� Results and discussions
From the LMI database were extracted 568 records belonging to the archaeological
sites from Ilfov County. Corroborated with the sites files from RAN database available until
December 2015, they were grouped in a number of 206 points distributed on the territory of
39 communes24. The spatial distribution of the archaeological sites had as starting point the
analysis carried out in the project entitled „Archaeological landscape. Outlook, History,
Evolution”, funded by the National Cultural Fund Administration (AFCN) in the 2014
session of the cultural projects, with related updates in 201525 (fig. 3).
The analysis of the 206 sites from RAN and LMI databases, which represents the
official record of the county, indicates differences from the real situation. This difference
resulted from the comparative analysis with the data from:
(1) Field walking in Northern side of the county made by V. Sandu in 1987-1988 (V.
Sandu 1992); its results, even though they were published, weren’t totally integrated in LMI
and RAN (fig. 4);
(2) The results of archaeological excavations made on the basis of the authorizations
for construction from the DJC Ilfov archive. For the year 2008 there are 42 reports on rescue
archaeological excavations and surveillance. In 80% of the mentioned cases the results of the
archaeological excavations confirm the descriptions from the site file found in RAN and LMI
databases (but not the exact location and area). The rest of 20% do not confirm the site file,
partially (correct location but no archaeological traces were found / location is wrong but
there are archaeological traces, indicating the existence of another site) or entirely (the
location was wrong and there are no archaeological traces). The location referred to in this
document type is the official one, offered by RAN and LMI. In each authorization issued by
the related authorities, both RAN and LMI codes are mentioned.
(3) Historical studies made for the renewal of each commune PUG present differences
regarding the recorded sites and the sites registered in RAN and LMI.
(4) In the case of the archaeological sites of necropolis type, which are hardly traced
during field researches, it is even more difficult to estimate their limits. In this regard the
excavations from Crețuleasca26 can be mentioned, where an archaeological site was known
(RAN 105437.01, LMI IF-I-s-B-20254) but after field walking and sondages the necropolis was
still not found. The rescue excavations in the area of the future A3 highway (Bucureşti –
Braşov, Bucureşti – Moara Vlăsiei segment) revealed, among other archaeological complexes,
an inhumation necropolis with 271 graves. Archaeological researches were made only on the
24 By data plotting no archaeological site was allocated on the Nuci commune area. 25http://peisaje-arheologice.ro/index.php/concept/studii-de-caz/harta-siturilor-arheologice-din-judetul-
ilfov. 26 Campaign 2010 - http://cronica.cimec.ro/detaliu.asp?k=4632&d=Cretuleasca-Stefanestii-de-Jos-Ilfov-
2010 and campaign 2011 http://cronica.cimec.ro/detaliu.asp?k=4880&d=Cretuleasca-Stefanestii-de-Jos-
Ilfov-malul-drept-al-vaii-Pasarea-km-7+900--8+250-2011.
Mihai Ștefan FLOREA
212
perimeter marked by the highway project, the rest of the area being investigated only by
surface researches.
The analysis of LMI and RAN databases correlated with DJC Ilfov archive shows the
impossibility to determine the area of archaeological sites because most of them are
described as a point in space. There are only few information regarding the sites dimensions,
more precisely their area. Accordingly, the analysis of human impact on archaeological sites
can be made only when the surfaces are large enough27. The analysis on small size surfaces,
like the archaeological investigations made as a consequence of the construction of an
individual dwelling, can hardly reveal how much of an archaeological site was affected and
which is its position within the site. These elements can be very useful for developing the
strategies of collaboration between local/ central authorities and investors, when the
existence of a site is known in an area which is about to be developed.
Regarding the analysis based on CORINE data, the representation for Ilfov County
revealed the great degree of fragmentation of the land use. Forests, with large surfaces, were
good interpreted by CORINE analysis. As for areas with constructions, it looks like there are
only two main surfaces, but actually there are many, not so well individualized as they are
aleatory and fragmentary distributed. These observations indicate that, for Ilfov County, the
CORINE files can be used only in the analysis of surfaces with forests. The surface
interpreted by CORINE as being covered by forests is of 26000 Ha, value which is very close
to the one offered by DTM topographical map, second edition, 1980. Using the analysis of
some historical maps, by comparative methods, we could extract the surface and distribution
of forests for this county in the studied period. The surface of forests determined by the
Charta 1864 is 55965 Ha and their spatial distribution within the county does not indicate
major differences compared with nowadays situation. The differences appear only at ground
level (fig. 5). By correlating these data with the archaeological sites distribution it can be
noticed that many of the sites from Northern Ilfov County were naturally protected for a
long period. Once the land use changed (pastures, agricultural lands, residential complexes),
this protection diminished and even vanished in some places.
Another type of analysis realized with geospatial instruments had as base the satellite
images, aerial images and the orthophotoplans. It was applied for a series of sites which
were selected from DJC Ilfov archive, sites which were affected by rescue archaeological
researches imposed by projects of land development (real estate projects, infrastructure
projects).
From the sites affected by archaeological excavations in order to develop great
residential projects, we present here the archaeological site28 from Balotești (com. Balotești) and
archaeological site from Buftea29 (Buftea town).
In the case of Balotești Site (O. Țentea et alii 2010) the archaeological investigation was
made in the site having as code RAN 100978.02 and LMI IF-I-s-B-15142 but the residential
project was not finalized. The surface investigated by archaeological excavations was cca. 3
Ha from the 20 Ha which is the estimated entire surface of the site. Even though it covered a
consistent surface of the site, the archaeological research did not managed to offer some
relevant conclusions regarding the dimensions of that settlement (O. Țentea et alii 2010, p.
184-185). Only a few individual residences were constructed after the excavation were done
27 This occurs whenever works at real estate projects or infrastructure plans (highways) are started. 28 This is the name of the archaeological site in LMI 2010. 29 This is the name of the archaeological site in LMI 2010.
Anthropic impact on the archaeological sites reflected in geospatial analysis. Study case: Ilfov County
213
in 2008 (fig. 6) as revealed by the satellite images investigated through Google Earth. In this
case, the issue of site preservation is no longer a question, but that of the valorization of the
archaeological materials found during filed work and excavations.
As for the site in Balotești, in the case of Buftea archaeological site (Buftea town) - “La
Cârna” archaeological researches were also carried on in 2007. The research affected 5 Ha of
the estimated cca. 30 Ha surface of the site, because a residential complex was developing in
the area. According with the material discovered in the 16 archaeological complexes, the file
of the site from “La Cârna”30 was confirmed. The site limits and amplitude of inhabited area
in that zone remained unknown. The archaeological report in 2012 mentions the existence of
Bronze Age materials, which can be added to the site file31.
Other major projects of land development (road infrastructure, industrial
development) that affected Ilfov County on its entire surface are the highways București-
Brașov and București-Constanța.
București-Brasov is another project that changed entirely the landscape and passed
through two archaeological registered in RAN and LMI: Crețuleasca (RAN Code 105437.01,
LMI code IF-I-s-B-20254) and Moara Vlăsiei (A. Frînculeasa et alii 2014). The effects are still
felt nowadays because of the works of infrastructure (highway interchanges) between
localities that are placed near sites. București-Constanța highway affected the archaeological
sites from Vadul Anei, Tînganu and Cernica (E.S. Teodor 2011).
A comparison between the data of some census made in the studied period revealed
that the demographic growth (V. Mihăilescu 1925, p. 89-91) is the main factor that affects the
archaeological sites. The extension of urban surfaces in an area which until recently was far
away from localities, will permanently create stress upon immobile cultural heritage.
� Conclusions
In this paper we present an approach less used in the archaeological filed in Romania,
in order to evaluate the anthropic impact upon archaeological sites. We used the combined
analysis of CORINE data with the spatial distribution of archaeological sites. The analyzed
data, extracted from the official RAN and LMI databases, correlated with DJC Ilfov archive,
highlighted that the extension of urban surfaces correlated with the demographic growth
represent the most important factor of the anthropic impact on archaeological sites. This
generates during time a radical change in the nearby area of constructions and a diminishing
of the archaeological sites surface. Nowadays, few sites from Ilfov County can still be found
outside localities.
Considering the protection and preservation of archaeological heritage, more precisely
the diminishing of uncontrolled damage of archaeological sites, the methodology presented
in this paper could be added to the preliminary studies made in the initial stages of the major
projects of land development in Ilfov County.
30 The results of the excavations and the investigated areas were extracted from the report obtained
from the DJC Ilfov. 31 http://cronica.cimec.ro/detaliu.asp?k=4998&d=Buftea-Ilfov-La-Carna-2012.
Mihai Ștefan FLOREA
214
� Acknowledgments
This work was supported by the project “Interdisciplinary excellence in doctoral
scientific research in Romania - EXCELLENTIA” co-funded from the European Social Fund
through the Development of Human Resources Operational Programme 2007-2013, contract
no. POSDRU/187/1.5/S/155425.
� Bibliography
P. Angelstam 2006 Maintaining cultural and natural biodiversity in Europe's
economic centre and periphery in M. Agnoletti (ed.), The
conservation of cultural landscapes, Cabi, Wallingford, p. 125-
143.
C. Borș 2014 Protejarea patrimoniului arheologic din România. Despre situri și
monumente arheologice din perspectiva evoluției cadrului
legislativ în context european, Ed. Mega, Cluj-Napoca.
P.V. Coteț 1976 Câmpia Română. Studiu de geomorfologie integrată, Ceres,
București.
V. Crăciunescu 2006 Hărțile austriece (1910) reproiectate în Stereo70, geo-spatial.org,
http://www.geo-spatial.org/download/harile-austriece-1910-
reproiectate-in-stereo70, accesat în 2015-12-30.
M.Ș. Florea 2015 Evoluția administrativ-teritorială a județului Ilfov. Studiu de
cartografie comparată / The territorial – administrative
evolution of the Ilfov County. A study of comparative
cartography, Muzeul Nțional, XXVII, p. 337-358.
A. Frînculeasa et alii
2014
A. Frînculeasa, N. Șerban, A. Anton, O. Negrea, Raport de
cercetare arheologică preventivă pe autostrada Bucureşti-
Ploieşti. Şantierul arheologic Moara Vlăsiei (jud. Ilfov),
Anuarul Muzeului de Istorie și Arheologie Prahova. Studii și
Cercetări (SN), V(13), p. 114-153.
L. Măruia et alii 2011 L. Măruia, D. Micle, A. Cîntar, A. Stavilă, L. Bolcu, O. Borlea,
M. Ardelean, Baza de date a siturilor arheologice cuprinse în
Lista Monumentelor Istorice a judeţului Timiş. Rezultatele
cercetărilor de teren, BioFlux, Cluj-Napoca.
V. Mihăilescu 1925 Vlăsia și Mostiștea. Evoluția geografică a două regiuni din
Câmpia Română, Buletinul societății regale române de geografie,
43, p. 1-200.
A.-I. Petrișor 2011 Metodologie bazată pe utilizarea datelor CORINE pentru
analiza stării de calitate a patrimoniului natural în cadrul
documentațiilor de amenajare a teritoriului și de urbanism,
Urbanism. Arhitectură. Construcţii, 2 (1), p. 15-20.
Anthropic impact on the archaeological sites reflected in geospatial analysis. Study case: Ilfov County
215
V. Sandu 1992 Cercetările arheologice de suprafaţă din nordul Sectorului
Agricol Ilfov, Cercetări Arheologice în Bucureşti, 4, p. 289-233.
V. Sandu 2013 Descoperiri arheologice în situl Vârteju "Grajdurile fostului
C.A.P.", orașul Măgurele, județul Ilfov (Așezări din epoca
bronzului, Hallstatt, secolele II-IV și X-XI d.Hr.), Cercetări
Arheologice în Bucureşti, 9, p. 66-131.
C.E. Ștefan, M.Ș. Florea
2010
La dynamique de l’habitat néo – enéolithique dans la
microrégion Argeş – Dâmboviţa, Pontica, 43, p. 179-189.
R.C. Stoiculescu et alii
2014
R.C. Stoiculescu, A.E. Huzui, A. Gavrilidis, A. Niță, I.G.
Pătru-Stupariu, I. Călin, A. Cuciulan, What is the spatial link
between the Roman civilisation and cultural landscape in
Romania?, Journal of Maps, p. 297-307.
E.S. Teodor 2011 Așezări din Evul Mediu timpuriu la Vadu Anei-Brănești, CA,
XI, p. 125-170.
O. Țentea et alii 2010 O. Țentea, S. Cleșiu, M.Ș. Florea, C. Borș, A. Rațiu, Cercetări
arheologice preventive în zona Balotești (jud. Ilfov), CA,
XVII, p. 177-224.
I. Ujvári 1972 Geografia apelor României, Ed. Științifică, București.
Mihai Ștefan FLOREA
216
Fig. 1. Ilfov County. Geomorphological map and the distribution of the archaeological sites
registered in RAN and LMI. Altitudes scales complies ASTER GDEM v.2.
Județul Ilfov. Harta geomorfologică și distribuția siturilor arheologice înregistrate în RAN și
LMI. Scara altitudinilor obținută după ASTER GDEM v.2.
Anthropic impact on the archaeological sites reflected in geospatial analysis. Study case: Ilfov County
217
Fig. 2. UAT Ilfov County after 1996 (according ANCPI 2014, INS 2011).
Unitățile administrativ-teritoriale ale județului Ilfov după anul 1996 (sursa INS 2011, ANCPI
2014).
Mihai Ștefan FLOREA
218
Fig. 3. The distribution of the archaeological sites from the Ilfov County according to the data
from RAN and LMI.
Distribuția siturilor arheologice din județul Ilfov conform datelor RAN și LMI.
Anthropic impact on the archaeological sites reflected in geospatial analysis. Study case: Ilfov County
219
Fig. 4. The distribution of the archaeological sites from the North part of the Ilfov County
according to V. Sandu 1992.
Distribuția siturilor arheologice din partea de nord a județului Ilfov, după V. Sandu 1992.
Mihai Ștefan FLOREA
220
Fig. 5. The limit of the major areas of forests extracted from Charta 1864 overlaid on the
CORINE data 2006, filtered by the layer "forests".
Limita suprafețelor majore de pădure extrase din Charta 1864 suprapuse pe datele CORINE
2006 filtrate pe stratul „păduri”.
Anthropic impact on the archaeological sites reflected in geospatial analysis. Study case: Ilfov County
221
Fig. 6. Balotești area studied with Google Earth image history service. 6. A. Real estate
investments that appears in the image from 2006. 6. B. Real estate investments that appears
in the image from 2009 overlaid on the 2006 ones (O. Țentea et alii 2010, pl. 5).
Zona Balotești analizată prin serviciul de imagini istorice Google Earth. 6. A. Investiții
imobiliare care apar în imaginea din 2006; 6. B. Investiții imobiliare care apar în imaginea din
2009 suprapuse peste cele din 2006 (O. Țentea et alii 2010, pl. 5).